You are on page 1of 27

JETS 52/1 (March 2009) 19–45

peter j. gentry*
Canon and text are closely related.1 For those who believe in divine revelation mediated by authorized agents, the central questions are (1) What
writings constitute the words communicated by God? and (2) Have such
writings been reliably transmitted to us? Although my presentation is focused
on the latter question, the former is logically prior. How one answers the
first question will determine evaluation of evidence relating to the second.
I am assuming in this treatment of the text of the OT that what is authoritative as inspired Scripture is the canonical text.2 Factors defining a canonical
text according to Nahum Sarna, are “a fixed arrangement of content” and
“the tendency to produce a standardized text.”3 M. Civil notes concerning the
transmission of ancient Mesopotamian literature that “text stability and fixed
sequence of tablets within a series are also the criteria by which to define a
cuneiform text as standard or canonical.” 4 Although I defer to the paper by
Professor Dempster, 5 my own study of canonization has led me to conclude
that the text of the OT in arrangement, content, and stability was fixed by
the time of Ben Sira or more probably, at the end of the fifth century bc by
Ezra and Nehemiah. According to 2 Macc 2:13–14, Judas collected the books
as a library after the war, following the example of Nehemiah before him.
It is the history of this text that I attempt to treat in what follows.
* Peter Gentry, professor of OT Interpretation at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary,
2825 Lexington Road, Louisville, KY 40280, delivered this plenary address at the 60th annual
meeting of the ETS in Providence, RI on November 19, 2008.
I am grateful to the following for constructive criticism and proofing of my work: Andrew
McClurg and Duane Garrett. This paper represents a development and complete revision of Peter
J. Gentry, “The Septuagint and the Text of the Old Testament,” BBR 16 (2006) 193–218, although
some examples are duplicated.
This definition is more accurate theologically than “the autographic text of Scripture” to
which the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy makes reference. It is also a realistic goal in terms of
historical research.
Nahum M. Sarna, “The Order of the Books,” in Studies in Jewish Bibliography: History and
Literature in Honor of I. Edward Kiev (ed. Ch. Berlin; New York: KTAV, 1971) 407–13, esp. 411
and 413, n. 15.
Miguel Civil, Materials for the Sumerian Lexicon 14 (1979) 168–69, as cited by William W. Hallo,
“The Concept of Canonicity in Cuneiform and Biblical Literature: A Comparative Appraisal,” in
The Biblical Canon in Comparative Perspective. Scripture in Context IV (ed. K. L. Younger, W. W.
Hallo, B. F. Batto, and D. Lampeter; Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1991) 1–20, esp. 6. See also
Benjamin R. Foster, “On Authorship in Akkadian literature,” Annali dell’Istituto Orientale di
Napoli 51 (1991) 17–32.
For a longer version, see Stephen G. Dempster, “Canons on the Right and Canons on the Left:
Finding a Resolution in the Canon Debate” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the Institute
of Biblical Research, November 24, 2007).


journal of the evangelical theological society

Discussion of the text of the OT entails the discipline of textual criticism,
both an art and a science at the same time. Study in this discipline advances
by knowing: (1) bookmaking and practices of scribes in the ancient Near
East; (2) the surviving witnesses to the text of the OT; (3) the relative worth
of the various witnesses; (4) the history of the transmission of the text;
and (5) appropriate methodology in the praxis of deciding between different
readings in the witnesses.
Engaging in this task is overwhelming; in my judgment no one person
can begin to master all the materials, much less survey them in a brief presentation. Here I will attempt to survey recent work on book production and
our list of witnesses before providing some assessment of the history of the
text, the worth of the witnesses, and approaches taken to the criticism of
the text.

i. bookmaking and scribal practices
A work by Emanuel Tov appeared in 2004 entitled Scribal Practices and
Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert. 6 He discusses
the identity, nature, role, and status of the scribes as well as their approaches
to their Vorlagen. Were they mere copyists or did they, in fact, function as
editors and even co-authors? He describes writing and writing materials such
as leather and papyrus, scrolls and sheets, ink and implements for writing.
All the technical aspects of scroll writing are catalogued and extensively
detailed: the contents and lengths of all the scrolls; whether or not they had
blank handling sheets at the beginning or end; dimensions of sheets; the
number of columns of text per sheet; the dimensions of the margins and of
the text; and how corrections and repairs were made. He discusses divisions
between words, sense units, poetical units and books, and classifies and lists
all editorial marks and the procedures of scribes. The different scripts used
and their origins are analyzed. The special scribal characteristics of specific
groups of texts are classified as well. The practices of scribes at Qumran, for
example, differ from scrolls found elsewhere in the Judaean Desert, so that
one may speak of a Qumran scribal practice, particularly in morphology and
The countless details make reading the book tedious and soporific, but this
is offset by the enormous value of the work. It is interesting that a number
of rules prescribed for writing biblical scrolls in the late talmudic tractate
Massekhet Soferim were already being followed at Qumran with little distinction between sacred and non-sacred literary texts. Yet a few distinctions
are observable between biblical and nonbiblical texts, and especially so in
manuscripts from the Judaean Desert other than Qumran. Almost all biblical
scrolls—including all proto-Masoretic texts—from sites in the Judaean Desert
were copied carefully and those in the paleo-Hebrew script were copied more
carefully than those in the square script. Apart from the amulets from Ketef

Emanuel Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean
Desert (STDJ 54; Leiden: Brill, 2004).

One Line Long

Taylor-Schechter Old Series and other Genizah Collections in the Cambridge University Library (Cambridge: Cambridge University Library. “to store away. Hebrew Bible Manuscripts in the Cambridge Genizah Collections. The official publication is in the Oxford Series Discoveries in the Judaean Desert. then. although approximately 12 texts are in the paleo-Hebrew script. although the majority are in Hebrew. Volume 1. vol. Na˙al Mishmar. 7 The discovery entails fragments of some 930 texts. and readings from these manuscripts have been cited in the apparatus of our printed Hebrew Bibles since BHK3. Another cache of important witnesses was discovered at the end of the nineteenth century in the Genizah of the Ben Ezra Synagogue in Old Cairo. 8 Volume 1 of the Catalogues was published in 1978 and the last two only in 2003. all dated generally between 250 bc and ad 130. vol. Proper protocol for old. mostly scrolls of the Torah. Wadi Murabba‘at. 2003). Commencing publication in 1955. from Hebrew ganaz. C. 1980). Some texts were written in Greek and Aramaic. Davis. 24. The place of storage is called a genizah. Hebrew Bible Manuscripts in the Cambridge Genizah Collections. not been collated fully. now preserved in the Taylor-Schechter Collection in the Cambridge University Library. too. idem. Hebrew Bible Manuscripts in the Cambridge Genizah Collections. Here. vol. Khirbet Mird.700 fragments are biblical texts. 3: Taylor-Schechter Additional Series 1–31 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Library. wornout scrolls requires that they be stored away. of which approximately 200 are biblical books. Catalogues containing complete description of these texts appeared in four volumes by M. Les Papyrus en Caractères Hébraïques Trouvés en Égypt (Paris: CNRS.the text of the old testament 21 Óinnom bearing the Aaronic Blessing from Numbers 6 inscribed on silver and dating to the seventh to sixth century bc. They have. our earliest witnesses to the text are after 300 bc. C. Texts were found at the following sites. Davis and B. 2. listed from north to south: Wadi Daliyeh (beyond the Judaean Desert. 8 . Davis and Ben Outhwaite. Wadi Sdeir (= Na˙al David). 1978). These are important proto-Masoretic texts. Most Hebrew texts are in the square script. Outhwaite.000 documents. that scholars have only just begun to adequately assess the textual value of these witnesses. M. Na˙al Se’elim. Cairo Genizah fragments. Ketef Jericho. Hebrew Bible Manuscripts in the Cambridge Genizah Collections. strictly speaking). 4: Taylor-Schechter Additional Series 32–255 with addenda to previous volumes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Library. C. nor is their witness being included systematically in the new BHQ for texts dated after 1000. 2: Taylor-Schechter New Series and Westminster College Collection (Cambridge: Cambridge University Library. 3. Na˙al Óever. 1. We can say with certainty. thirty-nine of the 39 or 40 projected volumes have now appeared—thirty-two since 1990 and even twelve since 2000. M. 1985). as yet. Early attestation to the text changed considerably in the twentieth century with the discovery of what are commonly called the DSS.” Of some 200. idem. but in a non-systematic way. Texts from the Judaean desert. can be mentioned a catalogue of papyrus texts from Egypt by Sirat listing five manuscripts from the third to seventh centuries: 9 7 Ibid. 9 Colette Sirat. and Masada. 2003). Khirbet Qumran and caves related to Qumran.

only a few vowels were shown. see Bruce K. Heb. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Mineapolis: Fortress. The text of the ben Asher family was universally accepted as the most faithful preservation of the text and is believed to be represented by such famous codices as Jerusalem. 3. Waltke and Michael P. 1989). O’Connor. Pap. The history of the text from ad 600–900 correlates with different groups of Masoretes. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake.89 Berlin. Dukan of codices in Hebrew from the Orient and Sephardic Region before 1280 lists 74 codices. 11 In addition. 49–50 None of these are mentioned by Tov in the first printing of his handbook Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Mosad Bialik: Jerusalem. although the publication by Sirat preceded his own by several years. Later. Jewish tradents who devised systems of signs to represent vowels and accents and committed the reading tradition handed down orally before that time to writing. 11 Michèle Dukan. These witnesses cast enormous light on the early history of the mt. Translation by the author of Biqqoret Nusah ha-Miqra’—Pirqê Mabo’ (Biblical Encyclopaedia Library IV. 10 Apparently their witness was overshadowed by that of the DSS. A large-scale emigration of scholars to Babylon occurred in the second century ad as Romans and Christians gained control. Ant. 1990) 20–30 and James Barr. Makhon Ben-Zvi le-Heqer 10 Emanuel Tov.3 Oxford. and (2) ben Naphtali. 12 At first. . 1992). different systems of pointing arose: Tiberian Palestinian Babylonian “Expanded” Tiberian Sublinear Supralinear Supralinear Codex Reuchlin (ad 1105) There are two famous families of Tiberian Masoretes: (1) ben Asher. P 10598 Cambridge T-S NS 3. La Bible Hébraïque: Les codices copiés en Orient et dans la zone séfarade avant 1280 (Bibliologia 22. Moreover. 1968) 188–222. Description of the manuscripts covers codicology as well as content. 2006). IN: Eisenbrauns. Later. D.21 and 4. Turnhout: Brepols. Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press. she dates 158 of the fragments from the Cairo Genizah before this time. 12 On the oral reading tradition preserved by the Masoretes. As a result. Masoretic tradition. full vocalization was shown under the influence of Syriac and Arabic literature.22 journal of the evangelical theological society Hebrew Manuscripts from III–VII Centuries ad Exodus Numbers Genesis Kings Job Oxford Bodleian Lib. the conquest of Palestine by Islam in ad 638 made possible a return to Palestine of Jewish scholars and revival of textual work in Tiberias (Galilee). Ashmolean Museum. Staatsliche Museum. a catalogue by M. Ashmolean Museum. Pap. Ms. 47–48 Oxford.

The number of manuscripts containing biblical text in these three volumes is 11. E. 15 Kennicott notes variants from more than six hundred manuscripts and fiftytwo editions and de Rossi from 1. respectively. 2003–2006).a Josefa de Azcárraga Severt. 1776–1780). According to Israel Yeivin. and 1085–1140 in Volume 3. and Luis Vegas Montaner have published three volumes describing medieval Hebrew manuscripts in the community of Madrid.S. Editorumq. Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum cum variis lectionibus (2 vols. de Rossi (4 vols. Colette Sirat and Mordechai Glatzer have edited several magnificent volumes entitled Codices hebraicis litteris exarati quo tempore scripti fuerint exhibentes. I B 19a in the Firkowitsch Collection of the National Library of Russia in St. trans. See also now idem. Madrid: C. ad 930) and MS EBP. Missoula.I. a. Oxford. Rhodes. 14 Benjamin Kennicott.. therefore. Catálogo de Manuscritos Hebreos de la Biblioteca de Montserrat (Barcelona: C. 16 See E. in 2. which lists 36 biblical manuscripts. Petersburg (formerly Leningrad Codex. Revell.16 Recently.. the breach between Samaritans and Jews was final. Ancient versions of the OT text.the text of the old testament 23 Qehillot Yisra’el ba-Mizrah MS No 1 (= Aleppo Codex. . 2008). 5. 13 These witnesses have not been consulted systematically since B. B. 5. J. with 1798 Supplement. for a total of 44. 4. Textum. Dated codices are listed up to ad 1020 in Volume 1. 5 vols. and 3. Codicum Congerie haustae et ad Samar. Medieval manuscripts. Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah (trans.a Teresa Ortega Monasterio.000 Hebrew manuscripts are known after 1100. for a total of 19.C. c. and probably also Greek (to. more than 3. It was later translated into Aramaic (whence the Samaritan Targum) and Arabic. 17 The number of manuscripts comprising complete or incomplete Bibles in these three volumes is 18. Amsterdam: Philo. repr. ad vetustiss.I. The Samaritan Pentateuch.. Kennicott (1776–1780) 14 and G. They have now begun a new catalogue of Hebrew manuscripts in the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris.475 manuscripts and editions. ad accuratiores sacrae criticae fontes ac leges examinatae opera ac studio Johannis Bern. Erroll F.. Other recent catalogues of Masoretic manuscripts deserve brief mention. Samareitikovn). versiones. Catálogo de Manuscritos Hebreos de la Comunidad de Madrid (3 vols. Würthwein. Francisco Javier del Barco del Barco along with M.. 17 Francisco Javier del Barco del Barco et al. ad 1008). de Rossi (1784–1788). The value of these medieval witnesses will be noted shortly. 23.S. The Text of the Old Testament (2d ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.. 13 Israel Yeivin. is a recension of the Hebrew text of the Torah transmitted among the Samaritans in isolation from the Jews from the second century bc onwards. 15 Giovanni Bernardo de Rossi. 1021–1079 in Volume 2. Malachi Beit-Arié. Only the Pentateuch is recognized among the Samaritans. respectively. M.. MT: Scholars Press. ex immensa MMS. and 3.C. and ed. After John Hyrcanus attacked Shechem in 128 bc. 1969–1970). Parma: Regius 1784–1788. Samaritan Pentateuch. Variae Lectiones Veteris Testamenti. 1980) 29. 1995) 40.

We know of the so-called kaÇge tradition from the Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Na˙al Óever and the later Jewish revisions of Theodotion.” in NIDOTTE 1:51–67. “Samaritan Pentateuch. which was adapted to suit the theology of the Samaritans. Melvin K. The Pentateuch was translated early in the time of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–240 bc) in Alexandria. and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of Raija Sollamo (ed. morphology. The name septuaginta.19 Sometimes the translation is an abbreviation of the source text and at other times there are additions. or “the Seventy. represents by comparison to what is later preserved in the Masoretic tradition a popular form of the text. in fact.” is adapted from propaganda that the Torah was translated by seventy-two scholars from Palestine (Aristeas). JSJSup 126. Hebrew Bible. citations by Church Fathers. Thus a comparison between the Samaritan Pentateuch and the later mt shows that many differences between the two represent a modernizing of the former in terms of grammar and spelling. Gentry. revisions were already being made of existing translations. “The Reliability of the Old Testament Text. 2008) 301–27. but the Septuagint is important because it witnesses to a Hebrew Vorlage older than our other witnesses. . “Old Greek And Later Revisors: Can We Always Distinguish Them?” in Scripture in Transition: Essays on Septuagint. Waltke. see Bruce K. Waltke. Old Greek or Septuagint refers to a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. 2006) 41–54. as for example in Daniel and Esther. “The Septuagint and the Vocalization of the Hebrew Text of the Torah. b.24 journal of the evangelical theological society The proto-Samaritan text. including the DSS. H. Differences between the Septuagint and the later mt will be discussed shortly. Peters. thoroughgoing revisions (called recensions) continued from possibly 200 bc through ad 200. and Symmachus. Leiden. long before all the books had been translated. Bruce K. 20 Scholars are still working to prepare editions of these translations based upon careful study of all available evidence in Greek manuscripts. See also Stefan Schorch.” in ABD 5:932–40. Aquila. Atlanta: SBL. The Samaritan Pentateuch is thus a strong witness to the antiquity and purity of the tradition in the mt. Individual books vary in character and quality of translation and exhibit a full spectrum from extreme formal correspondence and literal translation to dynamic and functional translation and even paraphrase. It is characterized by replacing archaic lexemes. not yet been clearly established. 2004 (ed. SCS 54. Leiden: Brill. and early daughter translations. Exegetical and historical difficulties have been removed and parallels are harmonized. Anssi Voitila and Jutta Jokiranta. The process of making systematic. Old Greek and later Greek versions.18 What became the proto-SP is a modernization and popularization of the protomt. To complicate matters. The precise line of demarcation between original Greek translations and later revisers in this corpus of texts has. 20 See Peter J. 19 Cf. The evidence of the Prologue to Ben Sira suggests that almost all the remaining books were translated by 130 bc. 18 For this characterization. and syntax in Hebrew with those of a later linguistic tradition.” in XII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies. Egypt. since the proto-mt had to be modernized and popularized in the second century bc so that it could be understood.

NJ: Gorgias. Ezekiel. Leiden: Brill 1994). Weitzman. Jerome. 1994) 51–84. 2006) 23. “Hebraisms of the Old Latin Version of the Bible. Ep. the Latin Vulgate.25 21 See N. One. . Greek Scholarship. and the Hebrew Bible: A Study of the Quaestiones Hebraicae in Genesim (Oxford: Clarendon.” in IX Congress of the IOSCS. No complete manuscript survives. 1999) 2. René Lavenant. is a translation made by Jerome between ad 391 and 405 and commissioned by Pope Damasus I.” in VI Symposium Syriacum 1992: University of Cambridge. 2007). Joshua. 1997) 41. it is a clear witness to the proto-mt of that time. a dialect of Aramaic. Faculty of Divinity. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. originated in Italy and North Africa c. It offers less variants than the Septuagint. Scholars still seek to provide an adequate explanation for agreements with mt against the lxx. In certain books (Genesis. “Peshitta. It probably originated in Edessa and was almost certainly completed by the third century ad since it is cited by fourth-century writers.the text of the old testament 25 c. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sebastian Brock. Piscataway. Agreements between the Peshitta and Septuagint or Peshitta and Targums can be explained for the most part by polygenesis and common access to the interpretive traditions of Second Temple Judaism. The Syriac Version of the Old Testament: An Introduction (University of Cambridge Oriental Publications 56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1999). 24 See Michael P. 25 See Michael P. ed. “The Old Latin of Chronicles between the Greek and the Hebrew.” VT 53 (2003) 487–513. 23 Jerome. and M. d. Jeremiah. Proverbs.. clear cases of sporadic and non-systematic dependence on the Septuagint can be found. 24 Translation technique varies from book to book. Weitzman. Qoheleth. the Old Latin. Cambridge 1995 (SCS 45. Jerome began learning Hebrew during a stay in the desert of Chalcis ad 375–377 and devoted further study during his stay in Rome in ad 382–385. idem. It is based on the Septuagint and is not translated directly from the Hebrew. Kraus. the Twelve. Latin versions. Isaiah. In general. 22 He continued to consult Jewish teachers when he lived in Bethlehem and worked on the Vulgate. Scribes and Translators: Septuagint & Old Latin in the Books of Kings (VTSup 54. The Hebrew Vorlage of the Peshitta is close to the proto-mt. 1997) 123–36. and idem. Syriac Peshitta. Fernández Marcos. Gorgias Press Handbooks. Leiden: Brill. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Cf. Note also Adam Kamesar. but more than the Targums or Vulgate. The Syriac Version of the Old Testament: An Introduction (University of Cambridge Oriental Publications 56. The early history of the translation is unknown. 84. The Bible in the Syriac Tradition (2d rev. from literal to paraphrastic. 22 See especially Michael Graves. Jerome’s Hebrew Philology: A Study Based on his Commentary on Jeremiah (VCSup 30. Psalms. 21 The other. especially Symmachus. Septuagint and Targum.3. Two Latin versions witness to the OT text. Ruth and Daniel). Peshitta means “simple [translation]” and is the name given the standard translation of the Bible into Syriac. although most derive through Hebraizing recensions of the Old Greek. ad 150.23 The Latin Vulgate is translated directly from the Hebrew with some influence from the Septuagint and the Jewish revisers. 1992 (ed. Possibly it represents a plurality of versions. 30 August–2 September. Song.

The word targûm means “translation. not on deviating texts. II 17:7. 29 This characterization is from Harry Sysling. 115a b. 12:6. #8. Wevers. 27 Étan Levine. 21a. 87f. 31 As the Septuagint is by far 26 y.28 The Targums usually reflect the proto-mt.” in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of its Interpretation (ed. Deviations are based mainly on exegetical traditions. Bat. 3:10. 65d. 134a. See also Sifre Deut 161. 8b. 116a.g. The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (AnBib 27. 1963). 9c. 28a. For rabbinic law and lore on targum cf. 39a. Sanh. Frank E. a complete new story is created out of the original text. “The Use of Versions for Text Criticism: The Septuagint. Aramaic Targums. K.27 The earliest evidence is the literal targums from Qumran and exegetical traditions in the NT (e.26 journal of the evangelical theological society e. Part 1. and Fourth Divisions. “Translation Techniques in the Ancient Bible Translations: Septuagint and Targum. 74d = Jacob Neusner. b.” It was customary in Talmudic times (third-fourth century ad) to translate biblical readings in synagogue simultaneously from Hebrew into Aramaic (m. Tanhuma II.30 ii. B. Noss. IX. although doubtless they influenced synagogue worship. Meg. (3) some offer a free translation and the additions actually replace parts of the original. Nat. 1996) 324. and (4) some offer a midrashic rendering. explain figurative language. 75a. 3a. 6. 1979) 1. XII. 14a-b. 8:3. 28b.I. “The Targums: Their Interpretive Character and Their Place in Jewish Text Tradition. Tradition traced this practice back to Ezra’s public re-promulgation of the Law described in Neh 8:8 (y. 28 See R. b. 21a. Meg. le Déaut. ’Abot R. 17a.209–28. b.. Meg.” in La Septuaginta en la investigacion contemporanea (V Congreso de la IOSCS) (ed. One Line Long . Ber. B. Sabb. 32a. Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura. Yerushalmi Tractate Megillah (Atlanta: Scholars Press. 1998) 123. Sop. Qidd. 30 B. 84b. Natalio Fernández Marcos. Gaebelein. 1985) 15–24. 6). and M.. 74d. Meg. Sukk. 31 J. y. 18:4. 3a. 40a. 5:15. 9a. 74d). McNamara. Mo‘ed Qat.C. 14a. Ber. I. and modernize geographical toponyms. 15:2. Soa 33a.5. Étan Levine argues that the Targums originated in an academic setting and asserts that at no stage can they be envisaged as spontaneous translations. 49a. 26 The main reason. 25a. Pesiq. Exod Rab. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. the text-critical use of the versions Before devoting the remainder of the time to an evaluation of the relative worth of the witnesses and a reconstruction of the textual transmission in the light of appropriate methodology. Third. b. Yebam. Madrid: C.” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (ed. 45a. Meg.29 All four approaches embellish using Jewish interpretative traditions. Four approaches to combining interpretation and text are used in targums: (1) some offer a literal translation with substitutions that actualize the text. 15c. 323–331. 1966). Mek. the principles for proper text-critical use of the versions should be briefly set out. R. The Talmud of the Land of Israel: An Academic Commentary to the Second. Vol. Tem. that is. “The Textual Criticism of the Old Testament. however. 23a. the names of Jannes and Jambres. Philip A. Waltke. Sabb. m. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 4:4.S.” in A History of Bible Translation (ed. 9. for the origin of the Targums must have been the fact that increasingly in the post-exilic period Aramaic replaced Hebrew as the vernacular of Palestinian Jews.. Magne Sæbø. La nuit pascale (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. mentioned in 2 Tim 3:8). 27b. W. Meg. 22a. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. 4:4. 2007) 279–305. Bik. 41a. 16c. (2) some offer a literal translation with additions that can be bracketed without disturbing the syntax or flow of thought.

1983) is cited as the putative parent text of the Greek translation. Two examples may illustrate sufficiently. but would then have to decide which case to use after ejpÇ.. but can be overlooked. 1967/77. One example must suffice:32 33 34 2 Chr 31:6 mt33 lxx34 ˆaxøw. Obviously the manuscripts used by the translator were not graphemically pointed. 35 I am grateful to Professor Dr. i. Göttingen. Septuaginta.q. but the Masoretic vocalization is retained to aid the modern reader. kaµ au˚toµ hßnegkan ejpidevkata movscwn kaµ probavtwn kaµ ejpidevkata a√gΩn kaµ hJgÇasan tåÅ kurÇå qeåÅ au˚tΩn They. 34 Cited according to A. 2004).the text of the old testament 27 the most important of the ancient versions. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. One cannot use the Latin Vulgate to determine whether the Hebrew parent text used by Jerome had the article or not. and not a√gΩn (“goats”). 1935). Robert Hanhart of the Septuaginta-Unternehmen.B: rcæ[}m" µhEAµG' µh<yjEløa” hwhyl µyv¥D. Fernández Marcos. Thus in rendering a prepositional phrase such as j"BEz]MIh" l[" a literal translator would probably use the preposition ejpÇ. By “version” one can only mean the actual translation itself and not later corruptions or revisions of it arising from the scribal transmission of that version. it will be used for illustrative purposes. Inner Greek corruptions. brought tenths of bulls and sheep and tenths of goats and they devoted [them] to the Lord their God. English translations for both Hebrew and Greek texts are my own. Rahlfs.e. since Latin has no definite article. nouns are inflected for case. Elliger and W. July 30. rcæ[}m"W They. and a tenth of holy things devoted to YHWH their God. rq. In Greek. All citations of the Septuagint are from this edition unless the critical editions in the Göttingen Septuaginta are available. . lxx Apparatus: AIGWN] AGIWN 93 35 The original text from the hand of the translator almost certainly had aÒgÇwn for µyv¥d. One must compare and contrast source and target languages as codes of communication. too.q. Rudolph et al. ed. too. tåÅ qusiasthrÇå.qum}h" µyv¥d.. qusiasthvrion. eds. 1. or to. [brought] a tenth of herds and flocks. Germany for verifying the evidence for this variant in the manuscript tradition. “Some Pitfalls of Translation Greek” (paper presented to XII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies: Leiden. Source and target languages as codes of communication. 2. touÅ qusiasthrÇou. Early in the history of the textual transmission. Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes (Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt. 33 K. This point may be rudimentary. but not in Hebrew.. a Greek scribe with no access to the Hebrew misread AGIWN 32 The example in 2 Chr 31:6 is adapted from N.

yBImI j"Wrw] 20:4a d["AyNimI T:[}d'y. for example. For nearly a hundred years the consensus was that the Greek translator had used a different parent text. and some thought that the mt was derivative and secondary to the Hebrew base of the Septuagint.” in Essays in Biblical Greek (ed. Gentry. The earliest Greek translation of Job is about one-sixth shorter than the Hebrew text of mt. 38 Taken from P. Before a translation can be properly used in the text criticism of the parent text. was I. Did you know this from of old? From the placing of mankind upon the earth? Ecclesiastical Text Derived from Origen 20:2a Ou˚c ou§twÍ uÒpelavmbanon a˚ntere∂n se tauÅta. since characters in the square series are easily confused in papyri and uncials. See e. The mention of sheep in the context also leads one naturally to think of goats. Wevers. The following illustrations provide a classified sampling of issues in translation technique. 1889. tazoh“ 20:4b ≈r<a:AylE[“ µd.28 journal of the evangelical theological society as AIGWN on palaeographic grounds. The Book of Job is a star example. responding so to dispute you in these things? and surely you do not understand more than me. Origen attempted to mark all of these in his famous Hexapla in the third century. W. Amsterdam: Philo. 37 Yet painstaking comparison of our Greek and Hebrew texts clearly showed that the differences were due to a functional equivalence approach to translation in which many of the long. Yet the majority of them are due to issues in translation and do not bear witness to a different parent text. 36 Many differences between the resultant translation and original source text are due to the task of translation and do not constitute real textual variants. 1995) 386. The most obvious quantitative difference between our present Hebrew text and the Greek translation consists in the pluses and minuses. Edwin Hatch. 215–45. 20:2b kaµ ou˚cµ sunÇete maÅllon h˙ kaµ ejg∫. Differences due to factors in translation. Consider.a: µyc¥ yNimI Therefore my anxious thoughts answer me. I hear admonition that humiliates me. Oxford: Clarendon. J. And because of my feelings in me. Edwin Hatch. 36 I was not. And a spirit from my understanding answers me. “The Use of Versions for Text Criticism: The Septuagint” 20. This error occurred so early that it dominated most of the extant manuscript tradition. J. repr. “On Origen’s Revision of the LXX Text of Job. 3. 37 One Line Long . The Asterisked Materials in the Greek Job (SCS 38. Atlanta: Scholars Press. one must understand just how and from what point of view this translation was done by a particular translator.g. Job 20:2–4: 38 mt 20:2a 20:2b 20:3a 20:3b yniWbyv¥y] yP"[Ic‘ ˆkEl: ybI yv¥Wj rWb[“b"W [m:v‘a< ytIM:lIK} rs"Wm ynine[“y' ytIn. windy speeches were made more manageable for a Hellenistic readership. 1970).

without the additions from Theodotion. Interpretation based on meaning in post-biblical Hebrew or Aramaic.Ps 60:10 lxx . . 40 Dhorme. Leiden. (2) while OG and Theod are comprehensible taken by themselves. 41 Origen equated OG 20:2b and mt 20:2b. Here in Psalm 60 the rendering by 39 The text of Job transmitted by the Christian church (called here the Ecclesiastical text) is an amalgam of the earliest Greek translation and additions from the translation of Theodotion inserted by Origen. ed.the text of the old testament 20:3a ì paideÇan ejntrophÅÍ mou a˚kouvsomai. from the hereafter?] from the time man was placed upon the earth? Six lines from mt have been condensed by the O(ld) G(reek) Translator 39 of Job into three: OG 20:4b renders mt 20:4b. £ 20:4b a˚f’ ou• ejtevqh aß nqrwpoÍ ejpµ thÅÍ ghÅÍ. Commentary on the Book of Job 289. 1931. H.Ps 59:1043 yxIj}r" rysI ba:/m Moab is my washbasin Mwab levbhÍ thÅÍ ejlpÇdoÍ mou Moab is the cauldron of my hope The Hebrew root ≈jr ‘to wash’ is correctly rendered by nÇptomai in Ps 26[25]:6. Polak. the hybrid text transmitted by the Christian church from Origen’s work is a hopeless mismatch and does not make sense. 1984) 289. (3) both OG and Theod obviously intended to supply a rendering of the Hebrew. 43 Alfred Rahlfs. following Bickell. ed. believes OG read ynm µt[dy tazh. H. and consequently supplied 3a. 42 4. OG 20:2b is derived from mt 20:4a. do you. 2004). You do not know these things. but on a different level he was wrong on several accounts: (1) essentially OG 20:2b and Theod 20:4a translate the same line in mt. July 30. albeit according to entirely different principles of translation. 58[57]:11 and 73[72]:13. see Édouard Dhorme. 41 Dhorme suggests OG read ˆkAal rather than ˆkl. see Dhorme. Psalmi cum Odis (Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Graecum 10. 29 [I will heed discipline from my humiliation. Ps 60[59]:10: 43 mt . £ 20:4a ì mh. 1967. 42 F. £ 20:3b ì kaµ pneuÅma ejk thÅÍ sunevsewÍ a˚pokrÇnetaÇ moi. Nashville: Thomas Nelson. Frank Polak of Tel Aviv is currently attempting to develop criteria to distinguish redactional from translational issues in the matter of minuses in the lxx. and a spirit from my understanding will answer me. His intent was to align OG quantitatively with mt. The siglum OG designates the part of the Ecclesiastical text that derives from the first Greek translation. Rowley. 3b. H. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. that is. These lines he marked with an asterisk and metobelus. tauÅta eßgnwÍ a˚po. 40 and OG 20:2a is based largely on mt 20:2a.. A Commentary on the Book of Job (trans. “The Minuses of the LXX on Joshua: Classification and Comparison” (paper presented to XII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies. Knight. 1967). and 4a from Theod(otion). touÅ eßti. The Aristarchian signs in Origen’s Hexapla which distinguish the additions from Theodotion are absent in most manuscripts. repr.

Flashar argued that the Greek translation was based on theological considerations since the translator hesitated to speak of God as having a washbasin. Duodecim Prophetae (Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Graecum 13.b:d]BI hw. And these came to sharpen them— the four horns—into their hands. Flashar. The Lord is faithful in his words. and task of translation are removed.45 Thus the Greek Psalter is based on the same Hebrew text that we have in mt. 46 Joseph Ziegler. transmission. “Exegetische Studien zum Septuagintapsalter. 251. The rendering in the lxx is based upon reading dydij“h"l} from ddj ‘be sharp’ and is due to confusion of dalet and resh. e√Í ce∂raÍ au˚tΩn ta. . Ps 145(144 lxx):13 cor add wyc…["m“Alk:B} dysIj:w] / wyr. µyi/Gh" t/nr]q'Ata< t/Dy'l} kaµ e√shÅlqon ou• toi touÅ ojxuÅnai au˚ta. Die Transkriptionen von der Septuaginta bis zu Hieronymus (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. but the apparent divergence is based both on Aramaic influence as well as exegetical issues. 44 See M.. . The observation was also noted in Franz Wutz. The text offered by the lxx is obviously inferior and easily shown to be a secondary development from the text in mt by common errors in textual transmission. only then can the text-critical value of the translation be assessed. 1943. The number four is supplied from the context. ed. Aramaizing influence here was noted earlier by Z.” ZAW 32 (1912) 241–68.v. ≈jr. it is clear that it testifies to the same consonantal text transmitted in mt and is not a serious witness to a different textual tradition. s. and loyal in all his works. Zech 1:21[2:4] 46 lxx 2:446 mt 1:21 µt:aø dyrij“h"l} hL<aE WabøY. 2002). The translator also vocalised t/dy.. and at other times the parent text of the Septuagint is superior. Sokoloff. 1967). tevssara kevrata And these came to terrify them by casting down the horns of the nations . A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic (2d ed. ‘hands’ and supplied a possessive pronoun rather than the Piel Bound Infinitive of hdy that we find in mt. Frankel. 1933) 151. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press. . Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta (Leipzig: Vogel. I am indebted to Seulgi Byun for this reference. 1841) 201. esp. the text-critical value of the septuagint version When issues related to the language.30 journal of the evangelical theological society ejlpÇÍ ‘hope’ is based on the Aramaic meaning of this root. One Line Short . iii.hy] ˆm:a”n. 45 M. At the same time. .w' . Two examples illustrate that sometimes the mt is better.44 In 1912 M.

Symmachus. Talmud Babli Berakhot 4b.Í kuvrioÍ ejn to∂Í lovgoiÍ au˚touÅ kaµ o§sioÍ ejn paÅsi to∂Í eßrgoiÍ au˚touÅ Gall fidelis Dominus in omnibus verbis suis et sanctus in omnibus operibus suis Pesh . Psaumes. ouß te para. St. Explanations due to errors such as parablepsis are not suitable. H.b:d]BIAlk:B} hw. The nun strophe is lacking in mt. and Symmachus shows that the verse had already disappeared from the proto-mt at an early stage. but extant in the Septuagint and Syriac (Peshitta) and now also attested by 11QPsa.Í a˚nagkaÇwÍ w˚bevlistai. Stephen D. F 126 sup. doubtless due to mutilation of a scroll at the bottom or top of the text. Ambr. meta. Hulst. coéditeur (ed. Barthélemy. McHardy. 382v and Patmos. William D. The relevant sources are cited followed by the summary analysis of Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament (CTAT): 47 47 A scholion attributed to Eusebius in the Palestinian Catena tradition reads as follows: oJ de.e. 1978) 276. For the text. établi en coopération avec Alexander R. 2005) 878. Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. R. tauÅta stÇcoÍ di’ ou• e≥rhtai: pisto.hy] ˆm:a”n. Yohanan. OBO 50/4. . See Ekkehard Mühlenberg. 327v. James A. The manuscript sources are Milan. ou˚ fevretai oußte ejn tåÅ eJbraikåÅ .HWd ™bo mt > (cf.the text of the old testament 11QPsa wyç[m lwkb dysjw wyrbdb µyhwla ˆman Ken 142mg wyc…["m“Alk:B} dysIj:w] wyr. 250 ad) oJ eJbra∂oÍ > o¥ loipoÇ > (i.Í kuvrioÍ ejn paÅsi to∂Í lovgoiÍ au˚touÅ kaµ o§sioÍ ejn paÅsi to∂Í eßrgoiÍ au˚touÅ. Psalmenkommentare aus der Katenenüberlieferung. Ryan and Adrian Schenker. Johannes 215 fol. Aquila. Theodotion) Jerome > (Psalterium iuxta Hebraeos) Targum > 31 a*rM WH ñm*hM ˜WhlkB œ*DZW 47 Psalm 145(144 lxx):13 is a clear case where the Septuagint has a superior text to that of mt. 4. The evidence from Theodotion. Sanders. The Psalm is an alphabetic acrostic. Norbert Lohfink. Rapport final du Comité pour l’analyse textuelle de l’Ancien Testament hébreu institué par l’Alliance Biblique Universelle. see D. Peter Rüger. taken from Isa 53:8. c. coéditeur. fol.Hwl ™mB . Bibl. lxx pisto. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Aquila. concerns the consonantal text and not just a difference in vocalization. Band III: Untersuchungen zu den Psalmenkatenen (Berlin: de Gruyter. to∂Í loipo∂Í eJrmhneuta∂Í. Barthélemy and the Committee of the Hebrew OT Text Project sponsored by the United Bible Societies propose that the parent text represented by the lxx is superior and the text of mt secondary. Another example. diovper wÒÍ peritto.

. 1939. H. Jérémie. 3. Winona Lake. 2.8B cor tw. Rapport final du Comité pour l’analyse textuelle de l’Ancien Testament hébreu institué par l’Alliance Biblique Universelle. Symmachus. ed. Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. E. Isaïe.. 50 Thus. 1967). 278–79. Sanders.32 Isa 53:8 journal of the evangelical theological society 48 mt 1Qa(c) 1Qb 4Qd /ml: wml wml wml [g'n. A. the remaining letters were read in the mt as lâmô and the consonants for the verb vocalized as a noun: “the blow was to them. 49 It seems that the parent text of the Septuagint Translator had twml. 1910) § 103f. IN: Eisenbrauns. coéditeur (OBO 50/2. the Greek translator may have mistaken [g'n. th. the blow was his/theirs because of the sins of my people he was led to death CTAT: 53. 48 The text of the lxx as well as of Aquila. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar (rev. Oxford: Clarendon. One Line Long . while not all critics are persuaded.. This is not probable either as an error of hearing or sight and overlooks the fact that the rendering in verse 9 is inspired by that in verse 7. “to death. Lamentations. Norbert Lohfink. Peter Rüger. ThAq V S T: clav wml [gn. Hulst. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. / lacun: 1Qa* twml wml lammâwet lâmô to death to them / to him? The best handling of the problem is by Barthélemy in Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. See Eugene Robert Ekblad. James A. Isaiah’s Servant Poems According to the Septuagint: An Exegetical and Theological Study (Leuven: Peeters. 50 E. /ml: [g'n.e.” This text is problematic. n. Isaias (Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Graecum 14. 1997) 194–95.51 the difference in the Septuagint is probably due to a different Hebrew parent text which preserves the original reading... since evidence is slim to show that the suffix can mean “to him” as many modern scholars interpret the text. 1986) 397–99.M:l" [G'nu [C] G // err-graph: 1Qa(corr) wml [gwn § harm-int: M 1Qb 4Qd Sym.M:l". yMI[" [væP<mI [gwn wm[ [çpm [gn wm[ [çpm [gwn wm[ [[çpm lxx Aq Sym Theod a˚po. Kautzsch. 2d English ed. and Theodotion are all cited from Joseph Ziegler. 1999) 235–36 and nn. Jr. and Jan de Waard. McHardy. as the perfect of gh"n. William D.. établi en coopération avec Alexander R. Once the taw was lost. ed. i. a˚qesÇaÍ laouÅ mou h§yato au˚tΩn dia. A Handbook on Isaiah (Textual Criticism and the Translator 1.n a˚dikÇan touÅ laouÅ mou plhgh. coéditeur. The translator also read a passive form of the verb— also attested by the corrector of 1Qa. a˚qesÇaÍ touÅ laouÅ mou h§yato au˚tΩn mt lxx because of the transgression of my people.” The taw was lost by accidental mutilation at the end of the line. but argues that since neither hßcqh or any form of aß gw matches [gn anywhere in the lxx. 49 Dominique Barthélemy. 51 Ekblad acknowledges the possibility that the parent text of the lxx had tw. au˚to∂Í a˚po. Cowley. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. tΩn a˚nomiΩn touÅ laouÅ mou hßcqh e√Í qavnaton48 a˚po.

1. This classification is not dissimilar from the description of B.52 Such a classification is extremely helpful in evaluating the apparent chaos in the witnesses. and Proverbs.. as I assess the consensus view and offer an alternative proposal to the reconstruction of the text history. we will consider the biblical texts from the Judaean desert. and lexicon. Waltke who notes two tendencies at work in the early history of the transmission of the text. grammar. ed. David S. classify the earliest witnesses according to two types: (1) manuscripts that represent a simple.” in Foundations for Biblical Interpretation [ed. between the lxx and other witnesses to the text which are genuine textual variants should be evaluated on a case by case basis. 2002) 139–66. but does not necessarily lead to the conclusions of Sanders and Ulrich. iv. Herbert and Emanuel Tov. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (2d ed. “Old Testament Textual Criticism. Beyond the far end of the spectrum in resignification would be the so-called parabiblical texts found at Qumran (cf. one to copy and preserve the text exactly and precisely as received and one to revise and update the text to make it understandable to the next generation. Attention will be focused on this evidence. Emanuel Tov has broadly classified the various witnesses found at Qumran according to a theory of text groups as follows:53 52 James A. or may involve updating in geography. Nashville: Broadman & Holman. Jeremiah. Sanders. assessing the witnesses and reconstructing the text history Several competing theories of the history of the transmission of the text have given way in recent years to a near-consensus that both canon and text are fluid until the end of the first century ad when they were standardized. “The Biblical Texts from the Judaean Desert— an Overview and Analysis of the Published Texts. Job. therefore. Assessing the texts from the Judaean desert. straightforward copying and transmitting of the text precisely as received. Bristol: British Library & Oak Knoll. Sanders labels the former the “repetition” factor and the latter the “resignification” factor. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (Leiden: Brill. Canon and Community: A Guide to Canonical Criticism (Philadelphia: Fortress. K. First.” in The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries (The Bible as Book Series. biblical and non-biblical. The revised statistics are from Emanuel Tov. 1984) 22. The Tendenz to revise and update may be limited to alterations to the form of the text such as switching from palaeo-Hebrew script to Aramaic square script and plene spelling. Evidence for this is based mainly on the variation found among the texts from the Judaean Desert and also on large scale differences between the Septuagint and mt largely in the Former Prophets. Many scholars. Waltke. Dockery. Kenneth A. Edward D. and (2) manuscripts that represent scribes revising and updating the text to make it revelant to the current circumstances and generation. or may go as far as re-interpreting the text for a contemporary sub-community within Second Temple Judaism. 53 Emanuel Tov. and one should not prefer a priori either the lxx or the mt.the text of the old testament 33 Differences. 1994] 156–86). . 1992) 114– 17. 1999) 11. and then all the DSS in general. Mathews and Robert B. Minneapolis: Fortress. then. Bruce K. including James Sanders and Eugene Ulrich who believe that the text was fluid and pluriform up to ad 130. Sloan. and Eugene Ulrich.

What is being affirmed however.55 The fact that the Hebrew text later known as mt was being linguistically updated by 200 bc shows that it was already an ancient tradition at that time. Finally. The pre-Samaritan tradition does offer important textual variants.” in New Perspectives on the Old Testament (ed. Surely the decision to abandon the palaeo-Hebrew script and adopt the Aramaic square script is a form of updating. Grisanti. “The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Text of the Old Testament. 1970) 212–39. First.0% Non-aligned 37% 53% Such a presentation can give the impression that we are lacking a standardized text of the OT in the Maccabean and Hasmonean periods. Two considerations must suffice to show that this portrayal of the text history may be misleading. J. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. 55 See Bruce K. however minimal. in a detailed investigation of 1QIsaa appearing in 2001. Qumran practice refers to manuscripts exhibiting a different approach to morphology.” JETS 44 (2001) 577– 98. Transmission of Biblical Texts in Qumran: The Case of the Large Isaiah Scroll 1QIsaa (JSPSup 34.54 This demonstrates resignification in relation to the mainstream text and presupposes it. Waco: Word. Paulson Pulikottil. and grammar. copying practices. explication. but this does not mean a different text type. orthography. The claim that 5% of texts among the Qumran Scrolls are close to the parent text of the lxx can only refer to cases where the lxx differs textually from mt. and contextual changes on the part of the scribe(s).(Pent) NaK (Rest) Proto-mt 52% 44% Pre-Samaritan 6. and the OT Canon: The Place of Textual Updating in an Inerrant View of Scripture. On resignification in the Masoretic Text. What we may have instead are texts copied in circles outside the scribes from the Temple where adapta54 Paulson Pulikottil. In fact.34 journal of the evangelical theological society Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (1992) Q-Practice 20% Proto-mt 35% Pre-Samaritan 5% of Torah 15% of Total Close to lxx 5% Non-aligned 35% The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries (2002) Ta. or evidence of interpreting the text to a particular audience or sub-group within Second Temple Judaism. One Line Long . these data can be assessed differently. This assessment of the pre-Samaritan tradition vis-à-vis the tradition represented by the mt acknowledges a measure of resignification within the latter tradition as well. 2001). singular variants of no particular value.5% Close to lxx 4. see Michael A. agreement between lxx and mt is overwhelming. Barton Payne. but when compared with mt by and large represents a popularized text that is updated in various ways. is that in the tradition represented by the mt. especially grammatically and lexically. Inerrancy. Waltke. Thus. modernization. “Inspiration. Tov’s category “non-aligned” needs to be re-examined to determine whether the kind of variants included here are real textual variants. We may even wonder if strong attestation for an early standard text can be found. the Samaritan Pentateuch witnesses to the antiquity of the tradition in mt.5% 3. repetition is maximized and resignification minimized by comparison with the pre-Samaritan tradition. identified numerous variants that represent harmonization.

“Textual History and Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Old Testament” 267–68. can be used to determine genetic relations.” in The Face of Old Testament Studies: A Survey of Contemporary Approaches (ed. And it is this common 56 For the proposal that scribes from the circles of the temple were entrusted with copying and preserving of the proto-Masoretic Text.. Leiden: Brill. only significant errors. 56 Second. 59 Adapted from Chiesa. 1999) 30. 2 vols. Textkritik (3d ed. Madrid 18–21 March. 1957) 27–31. Sheffield: JSOT. see Emanuel Tov. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Mineapolis: Fortress. He provides an excellent example where 2QJer (DJD III. and Al Wolters. “Textual History and Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Old Testament. their hands hang paralysed to help because of the coming day to destroy all the Philistines. 1950) 20–27.. “The Text of the Old Testament. 1992) 28. 62–69) shares a variant with the lxx in Jer 47 mt (29 lxx):4 as follows: 59 Jer 47:3b–4 mt :µyid. The author of the composition cannot be blamed for this and hence the reading is clearly secondary. 1992) 1:257–72. 1985) 215–16. to cut off all survivors giving help to Tyre and Sidon. 58 Paul Maas. Each variation must be thoroughly analyzed and scrutinized for its worth in determining textual relationship. This is primary evidence for a common ancestor somewhere in the history of these two witnesses. Arnold. Bruno Chiesa’s criticisms of Tov must be heeded. Julio Trebolle Barrera and Luis Vegas Montaner.” in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls. 57 We cannot simply count variations between texts or groups of texts. Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America. tyrkhl mt] ytrkhw 2QJer = kaµ a˚faniΩ lxx 60 Soderlund argues persuasively that the reading in 2QJer and lxx breaks the parallelism and introduces a clumsy change of subject which must be expressed in the form of an intrusive and inexplicable quote. Chiesa cogently notes that two fundamental principles have been forgotten. Leipzig: Teubner. The Greek Text of Jeremiah: A Revised Hypothesis (JSOTSup 47. .the text of the old testament 35 tions were freely made to suit the variegated communities of Second Temple Judaism. Earlier. 57 Bruno Chiesa. 60 mt has “to cut off ” while 2QJer and lxx have “and I will cut off. Baker and Bill T.y.” 61 Sven Soderlund. Maas called Leitfehler. in spite of the fact that the fragment from Qumran does not agree with the lxx in the arrangement of the chapters. see S. 58 what P. 61 What matters here is not a literary-critical argument but the fact that 2QJer and lxx share a certainly erroneous reading. ˆ/yp}rimE µyniB:Ala< t/ba: Wnp}hIAalø µyTIv‘lIP}AlK:Ata< d/dv‘lI aB:h" µ/Yh"Al[" [4] rze[ø dyric… lKø ˆ/dyxIl}W rxøl} tyrik}h"l} Fathers will not turn to their children. David W. Lieberman. 1991 (ed. Grand Rapids: Baker. First.

characterization from repetition to resignification is. 14 in a De Rossi manuscript. 63 Chiesa’s reminder concerning unique readings shows the category of NonAligned Texts provided by Tov needs re-examination. and in four other cases (29. and James C. But. 48 is to be found in some Kennicott manuscripts. are considered.g. Mathews’s article “The Leviticus Scroll (11QpaleoLev) and the Text of the Hebrew Bible. characterizes texts at Qumran on a continuous spectrum from biblical texts of the Pentateuch in the pre-Samaritan tradition. Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ed. Chiesa also demonstrates the value of later manuscripts. “in textual criticism what matters is not the number of agreements and disagreements between the various witnesses. When all the texts from the Judaean desert. Yet it is possible that these later sources preserve readings now attested earlier by texts from the Judaean desert. 42 by the same witness as well as by the Vulgata. Thus. Qumran. Tov’s category does not support the idea of a fluid text at this time. The notion of “rewritten scripture” as employed by White Crawford needs to be complemented by other processes.”62 The second fundamental principle easily forgotten. the Book of Jubilees. Natalio Fernández Marcos.36 journal of the evangelical theological society ancestor that witnesses a reading secondary to mt. Only five «unique» readings are left—not very safe ground for declaring this manuscript to be an independent text of Leviticus. but the nature of their variant readings and/or errors. according to Chiesa. Leiden: Brill. Ibid. “Rewritten Bible or Imitatio? The Vestments of the High-Priest. nr. Emanuel Tov. to Reworked Pentateuch. 2006) 321–36. 269. I cite Chiesa in full: According to the editor 15 lectiones singulares are to be found in his scroll.64 This spectrum moves 62 Chiesa. the Genesis Apocryphon. as Chiesa reminds us. Vanderkam. where the main results of his editio maior are made available to a wider circle of readers. A. 64 Sidnie White Crawford. both biblical and non-biblical. in her 2008 monograph Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times.” CBQ 48 (1986) 171–207. is that many so-called unique readings used to classify these manuscripts are far from being unique and are not reliable for establishing the position of a witness within the text history of that biblical book. Sidnie White Crawford. See. and the Septuagint Presented to Eugene Ulrich (VTSup 101. e. in fact.” in Studies in the Hebrew Bible. Flint. 6 appears also in a Genizah fragment. Editors for BHQ are not collating Genizah Fragments after 1000 or including readings from the more than 3000 medieval manuscripts. and finally 4QCommentary on Genesis A. five of these readings are certainly not «unique»: nr. the Temple Scroll. a continuum on a spectrum. despite the singular readings in 2QJer. 55) what is concerned is the presence or the absence of ta (nota accusativi). 38 is quite certainly shared by lxx. 48. As an example. 63 One Line Long . just as one color changes gradually to another in the color spectrum of light refracted through a prism. not count them. he points to K. Of the remaining ten «unique» readings. one is clearly the result of a mechanical error (14).. Fernández Marcos shows that the Hellenistic literary model of imitatio or mimesis is an adequate description for phenomena that is sometimes assigned to different literary stages or rewritten scripture. 2008). “Textual History and Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Old Testament” 267. nr. 39. Peter W. nr. One must weigh the variants. nr.

What is helpful is that her study shows the graduated continuum from biblical text to paraphrase to commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.” in One Scripture or Many? Canon from Biblical. the history of the biblical text at this time is not dissimilar to a Christian or Jewish bookstore today. “Pre-Maccabean Literature from the Qumran Library and the Hebrew Bible. and Psalms The same categories used to classify texts at Qumran exist in Bible editions currently published: Bibles that offer a standard text unadorned and uninterpreted.T.the text of the old testament 37 from conflation. “From Literature to Scripture: The Unity and Plurality of the Hebrew Scriptures in Light of the Qumran Library. harmonization. 66 65 Armin Lange’s perspective on canon and text is also skewed by failing to put the evidence from Qumran within the larger picture. In the larger picture there is a central stream dominated by the proto-Masoretic texts. . and Philosophical Perspectives (ed. and Bibles that adorn and decorate. and re-arrange the text for the audience and culture of our times. Do we conclude from this that both canon and text are fluid? Hardly. and modification. 66 In many ways. and idem. interpret. to commentary involving citation plus comment. See Armin Lange. Her conclusions. outside the circle of scribes closely connected to the Temple various sub-groups within Judaism used popular forms of the text. however. The number and variety of translations of the Bible is bewildering to people today. do not follow from analysis of the evidence. paraphrase. The evidence from Qumran must be put within the larger picture of all the scrolls from the Judaean desert—the evidence of one sect within the widely variegated Judaism of the Second Temple. Here are some examples of what one may encounter: The New Student Bible Life Application Bible (Take The Next Step) Psalty’s Kids’ Bible NIV Young Discoverer’s Bible The Adventure Bible The Full Life Study Bible Disciple’s Study Bible Women’s Devotional Bible The Family Worship Bible The Dramatized Bible Youth Bible The Discovery Bible The Daily Bible The One Year Bible The Spirit-Filled Life Bible The Orthodox Study Bible Rainbow Bible Precious Moments Mother’s Love N.” Dead Sea Discoveries 13/3 (2006) 271–305. This is no different from a Christian or Jewish bookstore today and should not be interpreted to show that the text was fluid or non-standardized. but this is only part of the larger picture. She concludes that both canon and text were fluid and not standardized at this time. through new compositions closely related to the source text. not to mention some future historian of the text. 2004) 51–107. Christine Helmer and Christof Landmesser. To be sure. 65 The fact that most of the texts described by Crawford employ as a base a popularized text similar to that in the protoSamaritan tradition is revealing: she is describing the path of resignification at this time. Theological. One wonders what an archaeologist would conclude after excavating remains of a contemporary Christian bookstore some 2000 years hence.

“The Greek of Proverbs—Evidence of a Recensionally Deviating Hebrew Text?” in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible. Intertestamental Judaism. brief consideration of the evidence of the Septuagint is necessary. Assessing the Septuagint. C. Zechariah warns that inspired prophecy is at an end. At first glance. however complex and problematic. 67 So the high claims of Jubilees and the Temple Scroll were not recognized by all in Second Temple Judaism.” in Of Scribes and Scrolls: Studies on the Hebrew Bible. Tov. and/or (3) the text is the subject of a commentary. 71 67 Zech 13:2–6. presented to John Strugnell on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday (College Theology Society Resources in Religion 5. Lemaire. Löning and M. (2) the text is cited as authoritative. and on several occasions 1 Maccabees notes that no prophet existed in Israel at that time. 1992) 194–97. ed. Paul. many differences exist between the Septuagint and mt.D. The most recent summary of all the research is B. and Weston W. “Septante et Texte Massorétique: Le Cas des Psaumes. In research on the text of the Greek Psalter. 2. Shiffman. Septuagint. Münster: Ugarit. This removes a major plank in Tov’s argument for the recensional differences between the parent text of lxx and the mt (see E. 2002) 139–61. K. 70 See Gentry. see E. and variants which are due to the translator and not genuinely textual. Tov readily acknowledges both points. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Someone in the future writing in the Martian Journal of Twenty-First Century American Archaeology and using the criteria provided by Crawford might wrongly conclude from a dig done at Southern Seminary that Grudem’s Systematic Theology was a canonical text. The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 1–15 (NICOT. diss. AOAT 300. the first datum from comparative study is the high level of agreement between mt and the presumed parent text of the lxx. Tov. several recent studies have concluded that the lxx version is a creative reshaping of the proto-mt aimed to enhance the figure of Solomon. 68 . 9:27. 1999) 285–300. “Salomos griechische Gewänder: Beobachtungen zur Septuagintafassung des Sprichwörterbuches. “Recensional Differences Between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint of Proverbs. and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov (ed. Leiden: Brill.38 journal of the evangelical theological society Crawford’s criteria for identifying a text as canonical are also faulty. 54. corruption within the textual transmission of the Greek version. and Christian Origins. Tov. Robert A. Kraft. Faßnacht. 71 See Johann Cook. 2003) 605–18 and Ruth Scoralick..70 In Proverbs. She analyzes the intentional composition in lxx 15:27–16:9 compared with mt. Leiden: Brill. 69 Gilles Dorival.68 When such differences are eliminated. The Septuagint of Proverbs: Jewish and/or Hellenistic Proverbs? Concerning the Hellenistic Colouring of LXX Proverbs (VTSup 69. Gilles Dorival concluded that the majority of differences between it and mt are translational and not textual. 69 The same is true in Job as I concluded in my own extensive study. A. Shalom M. Leiden: Brill. Lawrence H. 14:41. Asterisked Materials in the Greek Job. “The Contribution of the Qumran Scrolls to the Understanding of the Septuagint. “Wealth and Poverty in the Instruction of Amenemope and the Hebrew Proverbs: A Comparative Case Study in the Social Location and Function of Ancient Near Eastern Wisdom Literature” (Ph. K. 2004). E.” in Rettendes Wissen: Studien zum Fortgang weisheitlichen Denkens im Frühjudentum und im frühen Christentum (ed. Waltke. and (4) the text exists in multiple copies. Leiden: Brill. 2002) 43–75.” in Congress Volume: Basel 2001 (VTSup 92. Finally. 1997) and H. She gives four criteria: (1) the text claims to be authoritative. Princeton Theological Seminary. 1 Macc 4:46. Also noteworthy is Johann Cook. Washington.” in The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint (ed. Fields. Most of these arise from differences between source and target languages as codes of communication.

The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. VanderKam. however brief and inadequate for so large a topic. or perhaps even ad 135. Scholars such as Eugene Ulrich use the witness of the DSS. Fox. W. “An Analysis of Two Early LXX Manuscripts from Qumran: 4QLXXNum and 4QLXXLeva in the Light of Previous Studies. MD: University Press of America. November 25. A. Lastly. and other witnesses to stress that in both canon and text. “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Biblical Text.” in The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment (2 vols. Aquila (ad 120). 73 Y.. . ancient and pristine. 74 Instead of grouping our witnesses according to families or text-types as in Table 1. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (Leiden: Brill. It is in the nature of things that textual critics focus on differences. showing that in spite of the translational issues. ed.” in Congress Volume: Basel 2001 (VTSup 92. and T. Ulrich argues that we must recognize evidence for different editions of a text in its development or literary history as in Table 2. Youngblood involving exhaustive analysis of translation technique did not find many differences that were genuinely textual. Goldman. On the other side. J. “LXX-Proverbs as a Text-Critical Resource” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature. ed. the Scriptures were fluid and pluriform until ad 70 or 100. esp. about those situations where we observe a group of real textual variants between the lxx and our Hebrew texts that belong to a pattern. 2002) 85–108. “Translation Technique in the Greek Lamentations” (Ph. 1999) 31. Collins. Tobin. Greek recensions of the Septuagint. 1998) 1:79–100. 75 Eugene Ulrich. Lemaire.72 A dissertation on Lamentations by Kevin J. preferred readings from the lxx against mt in 46 instances and mt against lxx in approximately 104. A major new study by Petersen reverses the conclusion of Ulrich: the singular variants in these texts represent clarification and stylistic revision. as Ulrich did not adequately explore issues of translation technique. 2004). Attridge. Leiden: Brill. cases exist where real textual variants obtain between lxx and mt in which lxx has the superior reading. 3. Atlanta. 73 Kevin J. the research of M. A good example is the kaÇge tradition witnessed in the Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Na˙al Óever and the recensions of Theodotion (early first century ad). Flint and James C. 72 See Nicholas Petersen. See Michael V. Lanham. Let us not forget that both lxx and mt in tandem witness to a Hebrew text that is. something should be said. and Symmachus (ad 180). editor of Ecclesiastes for BHQ. both before and after the Fall of Jerusalem.the text of the old testament 39 Early witnesses such as 4QLXXLeva and 4QLXXNum were assessed by Ulrich against Skehan and Wevers to show a different Vorlage and hence a pluriform text. Peter W. See also Eugene Ulrich. J.D. so that the only explanation is that the one or the other apparently represents a different edition or recension in the history of a biblical book. diss. Large-scale differences between the lxx and mt.” BBR (forthcoming). 1990) 43–56. show revision towards the protomt as the dominant and authoritative form of the text. 2003). Leiden: Brill. In addition. H. the lxx. “The Text of the Hebrew Scriptures at the Time of Hillel and Jesus. H. for the most part. attested outside Qumran.. Fox is also important. 84–85. 74 Eugene Ulrich. Youngblood. 75 ed.

Y. Talshir. He is probably right. “The Nature of the Large-Scale Differences Between the LXX and MT S T V. cf. c 4QEzra 4QpaleoExodm 4QNumb 4QDeutq 4QSama 4QJerb.g. Q Practice Proto-mt Pre-Samaritan Close to G Non-aligned 1QIsaa 4QSamc 4QIsac 1QIsab 4QJera. S. idem. “The Greek Kaige Version of 2 Reigns 11:1–3 Reigns 2:11: A Study of Its Constituent Translation Technique and Semantic Variations from its Hebrew Vorlage Using the Interlinear Paradigm for A New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS)” (Ph. g-Jer m-Dan m-Pss Josephus m-Exod 4QNumb [SamPent.” in La double transmission du texte biblique. “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Biblical Text” 85. F. 2008). Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck. Z. including the texts from the Judaean desert. Of Kings & Reigns: A Study of Translation Technique in the Gamma/Gamma Section of 3 Reigns (1 Kings) (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2. Leiden: Brill. ed. The relation between the OG Version of Samuel-Kings and the mt as well as their relation to Origen’s Hexapla and the Lucianic Recension represent problems that are extremely knotty and intractable. and (3) the lxx of Samuel-Kings. Well-known examples are: (1) the shorter lxx Jeremiah. Études d’histoire du texte offertes en hommage à Adrian Schenker (OBO 179. C. 2–11 (VTSup 104. e. Atlanta: Scholars Press. “Text-sequence and Translation-Revision in 3 Reg. the witnesses according to Table 2 represent different literary stages in the history of individual books. University of Toronto. h 4QIsac 4QDana Table 2.g.” in The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible: The Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered. 1993). 77 Emanuel Tov. (2) others argue that the Hebrew parent text behind the lxx attests a literary form that is secondary and marked by midrash. W. Turkanik. 2003) 126. d 4QDeutb.” Textus 7 (1969) 1–29. Jerusalem: Simor. n. van Keulen. P. Andrzej S. 2 (MSSOTS 4. One Line Long . various witnesses may be grouped into families of texts which may then be derived from a single archetype. Two Versions of the Salomon Narrative: An Inquiry into the Relationship between MT 1 Kgs. (2) the shorter lxx Ezekiel. “Problems of Text and Midrash in the Third Book of Reigns. diss. Uehlinger. 76 Emanuel Tov claims that that the lxx contributes far more large-scale differences than any other witness. The Alternative Story: 3 Kingdoms 12:24 A-Z (JBS 6.D.” VT 19 (1969) 448–63. Relics of Ancient Exegesis: A Study of the Miscellanies in 3 Reg. 2005).” See Ulrich. 21. 2003). e.40 journal of the evangelical theological society Table 1. Philippe Hugo has summarized well different positions taken by serious students of these texts: (1) some assess the lxx as a free translation of mt and that the differences are largely due to translation technique. n+1 n+2 n+3 n+4 Grouping of MSS according to Text-Types 76 g-Exod Grouping of MSS according to Editions m-Num 4QJosha. 1976). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Gooding. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires. Compared with Similar Evidence in Other Sources. idem. Paul McLean. By contrast. 2–11 and LXX 3 Reg. 77 76 Ulrich explains. idem. Goldman.. “The ‘n+1’ type of designation for successive editions of a text assumes that there has been a series of editions during the composition of the text which constitutes its growth leading up to the first extant witness to a given book. 1 K 11–14. c. “Literary Design—A Criterion for Originality? A Case Study: 3 Kgdms 12:24a-z. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. IX 10-X 33. D. OL] m-Jer g-Dan 11QPsa 4QpaleoExodm g-Josh SamPent-Exod m-Josh According to Table 1. edited by Adrian Schenker (SCS 52.

J. some reservations. 2003) 1–16. Furthermore. It seems to me to be productive and positive to build a bridge between literary criticism. according to some. Atlanta: Scholars Press. or rather belongs to the period of literary formation of the book. Rostock. In this way. e. “David’s Return to Ziklag: A Problem of Textual History in 1 Samuel 30:1. 78 Tov.the text of the old testament 41 Moreover. 2004). Hugo. Lack of critical editions and exhaustive studies on translation technique make it difficult to identify variants providing genuine evidence for different editions. the stage of formation of a book. “The Nature of the Large-Scale Differences Between the LXX and MT S T V. 78 All of these are extremely knotty problems.” in XII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 95–104. e. Text und Redaktion: Untersuchungen zum hebräischen und griechischen Text von 1 Könige 1–11 (Ph. “Lost in Reconstruction? On Hebrew and Greek Reconstructions in 2 Sam 24. rekonstruiert auf der Basis von Text. But it is necessary to warn that the two disciplines demand different methodologies which should not be mixed together in that dialogue. Rewriting the Sacred Text: What the Old Greek Texts Tell Us About the Literary Growth of the Bible (SBL Text-Critical Studies 4. H. See P. But. Adrian Schenker. St. Stipp. 2000). 2008) 353–66. all of the modifications or variants that are not mere palaeographical errors are attributed with excessive ease to a different literary stratum. “Text History as a Research Tool: On Literary Development in the Books of Kings: The Case of 1 Kgs 19 MT and LXX” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the SBL. Leiden: Brill. Elischa – Propheten – Gottesmänner: Die Kompositionsgeschichte des Elischazyklus und verwandter Texte. “A Kingdom at Stake: Reconstructing the Old Greek—Deconstructing the Textus Receptus. Paris: Gabalda. 2006) 85–113. Ottilien: EOS. But here also I am inclined to express. 2000). overlooking the existence of ideological variants and the creative activity of many copyists at least in the first 2000) 41–57. Fribourg: Academic Press/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.und Literarkritik zu 1 Kön 20. 1987). in my understanding.g.. Texte massorétique et Septante dans l’histoire la plus ancienne du texte de 1 R 18–19 (OBO 217. Anneli Aejmelaeus. diss. and textual criticism. . See also Natalio Fernández Marcos. Hugo. Atlanta: SBL. idem. The difficulty of distinguishing in many cases whether a certain variant dates back to the period of textual transmission. idem. and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of Raija Sollamo (ed. each of which requires exhaustive analysis rather than just brief Probeschriften. Bösenecker. 2003) 29–58. 2007). Fribourg: Academic Press/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 313–350) is one of the most outstanding contributions of the book. attest a different stage in the redactional history.D. the lxx version of both Joshua and Judges offers a pattern of textual variants that. idem.” in The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible: The Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered (SCS 52. (4) a fourth view judges that the Vorlage of the lxx attests a majority literary form that is older than that represented by mt. Hebrew Bible. Schenker. as a textual critic.22 und 2 Kön 2–7 (ATAT 24. by and large scholars have not heeded the important review of Tov’s work on textual criticism offered by N. ed.” in Scripture in Transition: Essays on Septuagint. J. is admitted. Älteste Textgeschichte der Königsbücher: Die hebräische Vorlage der ursprünglichen Septuaginta als älteste Textform der Königsbücher (OBO 199. San Diego. Anssi Voitila and Jutta Jokiranta. “The Hebrew and Greek Texts of Judges. Fernández Marcos: I begin by recognizing that the section dedicated to textual criticism and to literary criticism as well as to the different editions of some books (pp. (3) a third view sees in mt and the Vorlage of lxx two distinct literary forms derived from a common source and developed in parallel. the period of its written transmission. P. and Kristin de Troyer.g.” Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 40 (2007) 89–106. Compared with Similar Evidence in Other Sources” 127. A. Septante et Texte massorétique dans l’histoire la plus ancienne du texte de 1Rois 2–14 (CahRB 48. the process of textual transmission is minimized. that is to say. Les deux visages d’Élie.

Peters. at the very least. But. that the arguments for a Maccabean dating of the mt are one-sided. the mt may be the resignified text. Yet in his analysis of the large-scale differences between lxx and mt. and the Samaritan Pentateuch.” in XII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies. including pragmatic reasons. 2006) 53. clear guidelines and principles from the categories of repetition and resignification can give proper direction to our conceptual framework and help us carefully look at the assumptions and methodologies of those who are attempting to combine literary critical and redaction theories with textual criticism. “The Nature of the Large-Scale Differences Between the LXX and MT S T V. in a recent doctoral dissertation.82 or it is possible for a translation to be resignified. The textual critic can choose for multiple reasons. 344–348) is interpreted as belonging to a different literary stratum. Translation by Jason Parry and approved by N. H. “Review of Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible by Emanuel Tov (Minneapolis: Fortress. ed. “The Septuagint and the Vocalization of the Hebrew Text of the Torah. But even in this case he will not be able to disregard the diachronic perspective and the connecting. 82 Turkanik. Fernández Marcos. but there are many other changes in the process of transmission for which we cannot find a satisfactory palaeographical explanation. 142. Leiden.” in Revue de Qumran 62/16/2 (1993) 306–8. Qumran. With excessive frequency each omission in an ancient witness (pp. even in the case of having to publish them separately given the predominance of variants that are not indicative or significant for genetic and textual relationships. The question to be faced squarely is this. when the Septuagint agrees with a Hebrew text from Qumran. the lxx may entail 79 Natalio Fernández Marcos. 80 On agreements between lxx. 79 Space and time allow only brief comments to point scholars in a direction different from the picture painted by Ulrich. 2003) 121–44. that is to say. ed. On the other side. what is the textual value of such a witness? Assured results are hardly possible with the editions and studies in hand at the present time. 81 Emanuel Tov. of all the witnesses of the tradition. what should be said about the accidents of textual transmission? The biblical manuscripts are plagued with omissions of this kind. forgetting that the period of transmission also meant a process of hermeneutical appropriation of the text.42 journal of the evangelical theological society period of said transmission. Tov shows. Nevertheless. see Stefan Schorch. But this does not mean that they belong to different literary strata. 2004 (SCS 54. argues that many differences between the GammaGamma section of 3 Reigns lxx and 1 Kings mt are due to resignification. Adrian Schenker. Atlanta: Scholars Press. this may mean nothing more than that it is a translation of a resignified text. if it were possible genetically. that is. 81 (2) It is possible for a text to be resignified in the process of translation. Melvin K. Thus. they are issues One Line Long . Compared with Similar Evidence in Other Sources. in some cases the reason for the omission is clear.80 Therefore.” in The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible: The Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered (SCS 52. not a better text. (1) It is possible for a text to be resignified in the process of transmission. 1992). to publish a certain language stage. esp. Atlanta: SBL. He will have to establish the connection at which the textual witnesses meet. If we can demonstrate that a group of real textual variants represents a different edition of a biblical book. even though it may not be the oldest that can be achieved by the methods of textual criticism.

1999) 315– 32.” in The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible: The Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered (SCS 52. Support for Tov’s view is found. and idem. “Issues in Text and Translation Technique in the Gamma-Gamma Section of 3 Reigns (1 Kings). ed. and idem. 2008) 58–74.D. “La vetus latina de Jérémie: texte très court. “Est-ce que le livre de Jérémie fut publié dans une édition refondue au 2e siècle? La multiplcité textuelle peut-elle coexister avec l´édition unique d’un livre biblique?” in Un Carrefour dans l’histoire de la Bible: Du texte à la théologie au IIe siècle avant J. 1985). Sheffield: JSOT. Bogaert. Leiden: Brill. De Troyer has shown that the OG of Esther is a resignification of a Hebrew text and the final chapter of the Alpha Text of Esther is a resignification of a Greek Translation.” TynBul 55 (2004) 157–60 for a summary of his dissertation completed at the University of Cambridge in 2002. The Greek Text of Jeremiah: A Revised Hypothesis (JSOTSup 47. 1977). Tov discussed this problem in detail in his doctoral dissertation. Louis Stulman. 1994). Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Tov. Adrian Schenker. Fribourg: Éditions Universitaires/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.-M. 126). Compared with Similar Evidence in Other Sources.” in Exploring the Origins of the Bible: Canon Formation in Historical. he presents as established fact the view that the shorter lxx Jeremiah is an earlier edition. “Exegetical Notes on the Hebrew Vorlage of the Septuagint of Jeremiah 27 (34). Leiden: Brill.. 84 of translation rather than of different text traditions. The book was sent to the exiles in Babylon. 2003) 121–44. Lundbom has also done extensive research and claims that 1. 2008) 31–56. Literary. Triebkräfte (OBO 136. J. The biographical notes in the book of Jeremiah clearly indicate that the work was rewritten several times. Stipp.” in The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible: The Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered (SCS 52. de Troyer. Tov. and Theological Perspective (ed. “The Characterization of the Additional Layer of the Masoretic Text of Jeremiah. and Adrian Schenker. idem. 1976). Yet recent studies on lxx Jeremiah reveal the complexity of the textual transmission of Jeremiah and show that this knotty problem is far from solved: Sven Soderlund. Evans and Emanuel Tov. ed. “The Septuagint as a Source for the Literary Analysis of Hebrew Scripture. Tov. Eigenarten. E. 1985). 1999) 363– 84. Adrian Schenker. only attempt to provide a brief overview and summary. but Jeremiah himself migrated to Egypt. “The Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah in Light of Its Textual History. The Other Text of Jeremiah: A Reconstruction of the Hebrew Text Underlying the Greek Version of the Prose Sections of Jeremiah With English Translation (Lanham. (OBO 233. Missoula: Scholars Press. Craig A. Das masoretische und alexandrinische Sondergut des Jeremiabuches — Textgeschichtlicher Rang. ed.-J. “The Minuses and Pluses of the LXX Translation of Jeremiah as Compared with the Massoretic Text: Their Classification and Possible Origins” (Ph. see E. E. Innocent Himbaza and Adrian Schenker. 83 As examples. “The Nature of the Large-Scale Differences Between the LXX and MT S T V.” ErIsr 26 (1999) 55–63. This does not automatically mean a superior text. Nevertheless. See also Young-Jin Min. e.” in The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint (ed. This history in itself suggests that perhaps the version in Egypt is not the canonical version in the library authorized by Ezra and Nehemiah. Grand Rapids: Baker. diss.” in The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint (ed. MD: University Press of America.g. idem. offers the OG of Esther as a resignification of a Hebrew text and the final chapter of the Alpha Text of Esther as a resignification of a Greek translation. The Septuagint Translation of Jeremiah and Baruch – A Discussion of an Early Revision of the LXX of Jeremiah 29–52 and Baruch 1:1–3:8 (HSM 8. 84 Recent essays by Emanuel Tov. Atlanta: Scholars Press. témoin de la plus ancienne Septante et d’une forme plus ancienne de l’hébreu (Jer 39 et 52).700 .the text of the old testament 43 a resignification involving one or two stages. Atlanta: Scholars Press.700 of the 2.. Fribourg: Academic Press. while that of mt is a later edition which “added various new ideas” (p.83 (3) It is possible that the parent text behind the lxx represents an earlier stage. in studies by P. Schenker argues that the Teacher of Righteousness could authorize a revision of Jeremiah = mt while the previous version (= lxx) still circulated. 2003) 51–82. Rewriting the Sacred Text.-C. See Andrzej Szymon Turkanik. H.

86 See Stefan Schorch. Theologien und Einflüsse: Internationale Konferenz zur Septuaginta – Wuppertal. Pietersma.” in XII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies. “The Septuagint and the Vocalization of the Hebrew Text of the Torah. conclusion An alternative proposal for the reconstruction of the history of the text better corresponds to the data and is more plausible. and the Septuagint. L. Leiden: Brill. and Samaritan Pentateuch. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake.” ErIsr 26 (1999) 28*–38*. and we are only beginning to sort it out. A. lxx. 2006) 41–54. Lange’s attempt to demonstrate a pluriform textuality from the Fouad Papyri is also flawed. Pietersma. Waltke and Michael P. One Line Long . 2004). who concludes that the lxx translators lacked an oral reading tradition. San Antonio. see J. 22 November. Wevers. van Peursen. Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press. Emanuel Tov. From a close comparison of mt. Pietersma at the University of Toronto did further research: Marc Saunders and Tony S. a work from 150 bc that purports to relate the origins of the Septuagint. similarly. To be sure. ed. Peter W. Schorch concludes that the lxx translators were dependent on parabiblical traditions in their vocalization of the consonantal text. see John W. Two doctoral students working under A. July 24–27. It may be a resignified text. “Textual Standardization in Eyptian Judaism and in the Letter of Aristeas” (paper submitted to Die Septuaginta: Texte. Up until the fall of words by which lxx Jeremiah is shorter than mt could be explained by haplography—a problem to be expected in the transmission of a text whose chief literary feature is repetition. 85 In reality. v. Wright.” in Studies in the Hebrew Bible. 2008). In any case. Leiden. The history of the textual transmission is highly complex. III. propaganda to authenticate the Greek Version in regard to the character of the translation and the sources used. Presented to Eugene Ulrich (VTSup 101. 85 See especially Sylvie Honigman. “Haplography in Jeremiah 1–20. see Armin Lange. and David Noel Freedman and Jack R. Peters. they may have used manuscripts outside the circle of temple scribes characterized by resignification rather than repetition. 86 We cannot a priori assume that an earlier edition or an older text is better. The Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria: A Study in the Narrative of the Letter of Aristeas (New York: Routledge. O’Connor. there are passages where the tradition in mt is poor and other witnesses may be better. ed. “Greek Jeremiah and the Land of Azazel. James Barr. Michael. But we have to show first that these witnesses are more along the lines of repetition than resignification. in fact.” CBQ 39 (1977) 240–44. 1990) 28. Lundbom. Aristarchus’s edition of Homer motivated the defense of the sources used for the Greek Translation. so Benjamin G. Atlanta: SBL. 1968) 209. Flint. offers good evidence that differences between lxx and mt may be translational rather than textual.” in a forthcoming Festschrift edited by Michael van der Meer and Wido Th. 2004 (SBLSCS 54. VanderKam. personal communication. Michael suggested from his studies that the lxx Jeremiah belongs more to the classification of a resignified text (private communication). we need not think that the lxx constitutes evidence that our Hebrew text on the whole does not go back to an early and fairly pristine source. “Haplography in the Hebrew Vorlage of Septuagint Jeremiah” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the SBL. 2003). where Tov’s hypothesis of revision in Greek Jeremiah 29–52 has been falsified and in fact may point to a new hypothesis of contextual accommodation and exegesis. See also Bruce K.44 journal of the evangelical theological society (4) Aristeas. Standards derived from the textual criticism of Homer required the assertion that the most authoritative sources had been used. Melvin K. Qumran. “Of Translation and Revision: From Greek Isaiah to Greek Jeremiah. is. See also A. IN: Eisenbrauns. “The Earliest Witness to the LXX Deuteronomy. It is unlikely that Aristeas § 30 is acknowledging a pluriform textual situation as Armin Lange claims. and James C. Lundbom. H. Rather. For a better analysis. Germany. 2006) 403–13.

similarly. Even in the translations. Thus. Emanuel Tov has argued that the collection known as the mt is coincidental in nature. we can see that they exhibit exactly the same types of resignification that we see earlier at Qumran. Jr. however. July 16. this is an incorrect conclusion. ed. As we learn from the DSS. “Is There a Raison d’Être for an Aramaic Targum in a Hebrew-Speaking Society?” REJ 160 (2001) 357–78. Edward D. “What is the Septuagint?” (paper presented to Die Septuaginta: Texte. but it was in Aramaic and in the targumic tradition and therefore separate from the textual transmission of the Hebrew text. Tov. Theologien und Einflüsse: Internationale Konferenz zur Septuaginta – Wuppertal. The collections we have were always the result of conscious choices. Second. We do not claim that the collections show no planning at all. Since there was no longer any resignification. we should also recognize many unplanned elements. Two important reasons support this reconstruction. 2002) 221–28. but cannot be best described as coincidental and unplanned. the period from the first to fourth centuries ad is the period in which the Aramaic Targums were developed. The traditional view considering the Aramaic Targum as a social necessity aimed at the masses that no longer understood Hebrew was in active use among the common people by the time the first Targum was conceived. 2007.. Tal submits the thesis that the Onqelos-type Targum was not destined to expose the ignorant masses to the Law. Let me be absolutely clear: the consensus view that the text was standardized in the first century ad is wrong. Tal’s argument may be summarized as follows. Their approach to the text restricted transmission to repetition. Stefan Schorch kindly pointed out that Abraham Tal had already propounded a similar view. does not aptly suit the evidence. . idem. 2007). 88 After presentation at the plenary session of the annual meeting of the ETS. Rather.” See E. It was rather directed against the tendency to “modernize” the text of the holy writ in accordance with contemporary linguistic habits and ideological trends. Juli 2008). for example. We merely suggest that. Herbert and Emanuel Tov. “1QIsaa and 1QIsab: A Rematch. it only appears that the text is now standard and not before this time. the precursors of the rabbinic tradition. Abegg. This gives the impression that the text was standardized at this time. the Pharisees. From the description above. was likewise dominant after the fall—the proto-mt.the text of the old testament 45 Jerusalem. they were the result of groups with interests at stake in the method of translation. there was resignification after the fall of Jerusalem. This description. but. Ljubljana. in fact. 87 After the fall of Jerusalem. Admittedly. in addition to visible elements of planning. and even rabbinical testimonies. in the Hebrew textual transmission there was only repetition and no longer any resignification. First. The use of the Targum along with the original made possible the modernization without altering the sacred text. the Samaritan Pentateuch. such harmonizing exemplars of the Law existed in the first centuries ad. Judaism was highly variegated. Bristol: British Library & Oak Knoll. See Abraham Tal. bis 27. and textual transmission answers to a broad continuum of texts ranging from repetition to resignification. Martin Abegg has shown. See Martin G.” in The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries (The Bible as Book Series. He asserts that this is “more pronounced in the translations than in the Hebrew mt. whose language was inaccessible to them. the choices available were poor at times. Germany 24. Scribes in the circle of the temple nearly always preferred texts representing repetition rather than resignified texts.88 87 Recently. “The Coincidental Textual Nature of the Collections of Ancient Scriptures” (paper presented at XIXth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament. what was dominant before the fall in terms of repetition. after the destruction of Jerusalem. in a recent reconsideration of 1QIsaa and 1QIsab that the dominant and mainstream text constantly represents choices from available manuscripts of texts representing repetition rather than resignification. Judaism was no longer variegated but rather dominated by one sect.